How would you instagib a master level Only War NPC without heavy weaponry:

Depends on which master. With the right combination of feats and ammo you could Instagib a Dark eldar Archon with a base model sniper rifle (They have 25 wp and a toughness of 44 per enemies of the imperium). Good luck getting in position for the shot though! With decent rolls you could potentially Instagib most of the "Master" level enemies in BC!

Mostly A.

If someone is hit with a bolter, sniperrifle or plasmagun, I would like that person to be out of the fight if:

A) It is a descent hit with a couple of degrees of succes (not a grazing wound).

B) He/she is not wearing very heavy armor.

C) He/she does not have an extremely high level of toughness.

The target does not have to die (especially if the target is a PC), but if someone takes a sniperrifle bullet in the head, that someone shouldn't be able to keep fighting. I wan't my players (myself included, if I am the player) to be afraid of getting hit by a deadly weapon. I don't wan't them to first be affraid to get hit, when they have 3 or 4 wounds. I wan't a tank-killer like a melta-gun to be able to actually melt the flesh of a underhive gang-leader, even if he is unhurt when I hit him. Anything else is simply unbelievable, and would completely ruin my suspension of disbelief if repeated in every combat.

I like the idea of an important character having some staying power, because the first attacks only graze him, and his opponents are only able to take him down after several hits that gradually grow in severity. Finally he is hit between the eyes by a bullet and die. I just don't want each and every single combat to play out that way.

As I wrote - there is no usually fielded weapon atm, that could reach the critical 32 damage needed to insta-kill.

And I also think this is not needed as it only leads to damage-inflation.

A threshold for deadly damage per character would be best.

If you get more damage than this threshold, you die. Doesnt need to be 32+

Could already be around 15 with a single hit (without + for previous wounds), so a very well hit Bolter shot could indeed kill.

As I wrote - there is no usually fielded weapon atm, that could reach the critical 32 damage needed to insta-kill.

And I also think this is not needed as it only leads to damage-inflation.

A threshold for deadly damage per character would be best.

If you get more damage than this threshold, you die. Doesnt need to be 32+

Could already be around 15 with a single hit (without + for previous wounds), so a very well hit Bolter shot could indeed kill.

I don't have the book with me right now, but I believe that the Energy: Body table will kill someone with a 26+.

That's entirely possible with a Plasma Pistol as per the errata, with or without Overcharge.

I had two situations in a Dark Heresy game where I came close to having a PC instant-killed.

The situation was that the players were investigating some reports of irregularities on a local system, caused by a corrupt head of the local Adeptus Administratum. They decided to completely trust the guy and tell him everything about their investigation, including detailed information about their employment with the Inquisition. The guy was, like, "Oh crap" and goes on to use his considerable resources to requisition an assassin to sic on 'em.

The players are being awfully public about their investigation (including telling the Administratum guy their exact plans) so the assassin's first setup was easy. She knew they were going to investigate a nearby factory, so she set up in a tower overlooking a nearby plaza at roughly max range of her sniper rifle (a custom 3-shot ting, this was prior to the Accuracy errata) and waited. Players show up, decide to stand still in the middle of the plaza, discussing what to do. Assassin takes careful aim at the head of (*dice roll*) random party member (the arbitrator, as it turns out). Takes the shot. I roll a 01 to hit. Okay, all three hits, head, head, body (I think). At this point I realize that the arbitrator will be pretty dead on an average damage roll.

Lucky for him, all three hits score a fair bit below average, and the third hit was in the chest, so he's survives, if only barely. The players take cover and most of them decide to stay put and stabilize the arbitrator rather than chasing off after at least one sniper *somewhere* in the city.

<some time later>

The players have discovered that the Administratum guy is the leader of a heretical cult spreading throughout the city. The guy is now on the run. They've also discovered that an assassin is hiding somewhere in the administratum building, so they start a slow room-by-room search of the gigantic building. The psyker gets bored and decides to wander off to search on his own. He comes across a particular hallway (that has been the scene of some shenanigans earlier) and decides to go through the rooms there. Most of the rooms are empty, except one that seems to be the living quarters of a young female adept. He politely informs her that they are searching for an assassin, and advices her to get to safety. He then goes on to painstakingly explain how he turns his back to her and goes over to examine the narrow window at the other end of the room.

As a GM, this turn of events was entirely unexpected, but there was really only one logical outcome, so I then go. "Give me an Awareness roll. A 98? Uhm. Okay. Someone shoots you in the back of the head." And the guy blacks out. At this point I'm deciding what to do, because obviously the assassin is going to slit the throat of an unconscious psyker. I decide, at this point, to test Awareness for the (relatively) nearby guards. If they have been alerted by the nearby gunshot, the assassin is going to play it safe and get out of there, otherwise, the psyker is dead meat.

As luck would have it, guards did notice the gunshot and came running before the PC was murdered.

In summary, I like that the PCs can set themselves up for these situations. But I also think they should work kinda hard to make them possible.

They decided to completely trust the guy

Heh. Now see - this is one of those situations where insta-death is deserved! Since when did PCs start trusting people in a Dark Heresy game.

It may be possible to kill a unhurt PC (toughness 30-39) with one shot from a plasma-gun to the body, but it is extremely unlikely (1 in 1000). It is a bit easier with an overcharged shot (1 in 100 for intelligence bonus 3), but I still don't think this reflects the fluff very well.

They decided to completely trust the guy

Heh. Now see - this is one of those situations where insta-death is deserved! Since when did PCs start trusting people in a Dark Heresy game?

Exactly !

This is the situation, where a PC would have to at least burn a fate point.

The assassin should have shot the first, then the next, if they dont react instantly and go into cover.

"Learning" in this sense means: Learn from the deaths of others.

Yeah. I'm of the opinion that Fate Points make up for a lot of the risks of having insta-death.

But my views are not as extreme as GauntZero's (as I interpret them). I don't want the possibility of insta-death, I want the possibility of the possibility of insta-death.

I.e. if I set up a battle between two groups armed with stub-guns, I really want the PCs to be able to run away from that if they realize after a round or two that they're in over their heads. But if they turn their backs to an assassin or pick a fight with someone armed with a las-cannon, THEN I want the possibility of insta-death.

Make sense?

They decided to completely trust the guy

Heh. Now see - this is one of those situations where insta-death is deserved! Since when did PCs start trusting people in a Dark Heresy game?

Exactly!

I hadn't expected them to trust the guy (it wasn't their usual MO) but apparently my creepy bureaucrat translated into 'trustworthy standup guy' in their minds. It made for a hilarious couple of sessions. At least for me.

And yeah, I agree with the overall point that Fate points is the scale that balances out the risk of sudden death.

I.e. if I set up a battle between two groups armed with stub-guns, I really want the PCs to be able to run away from that if they realize after a round or two that they're in over their heads. But if they turn their backs to an assassin or pick a fight with someone armed with a las-cannon, THEN I want the possibility of insta-death.

Make sense?

One thing I like about Dark Heresy, after years and years of D&D's "balanced encounter levels" is the idea of the unwinnable encounter. Sometimes the enemy is just better prepared, better equipped, and has more manpower and resources than you. That's when you have to get creative and try to come at the problem from a different angle, rather than just running in with guns blazing and complain to the GM when you get blown away.

On the other hand, the quirk of an unwinnable encounter is that it might not always be readily apparent that that's what you're facing before you're actually in the middle of it. Maybe the players have bad intel. Maybe the players failed some investigation rolls, alerting the enemy to their plans so they have had time to prepare. I don't like "Oh, and you all died" situations. That's anticlimatic and boring. So I do agree that the players should, baring really really bad luck of blatant stupidity, be able to at least live long enough to realize that the odds are not on their side, and get the heck out of dodge.

On the third hand (augh! mutant! *blam*blam*), I do kinda like the situation where you can step on a land mine and go kaboom. Again, I like to encourage my players to play smart and not just go charging into an unknown situation if at all possible. They are lowly humans with guns, not space marines, after all. If it makes sense for a particular enemy to have scattered mines all over the place, they will have. And that's something you counter with either research (there should be hints that a particular area is mined, even if it's not a big "WARNING: MINES" sign. This could be investigation rolls (locals know to stay out of that area, or maybe some guy know some guy who has a kid who lost a leg in there) or maybe just awareness rolls to spot the mines among the rubble.

For me it's important that the threat matches the foe. A well-prepared elite mercenary force sets up camp much differently than a nomadic family of scav mutants, and the players should realize and prepare for this. Again, not automatic "you are dead" scenarios, but definitely "I go charging in a straight line through the mine field. Okay, you die." scenarios.

If that makes sense.

(Ps. I love this forum. It makes even short posts look like half a novella!)

This is an interesting topic.

I'm not going to get into the specifics as you chaps have already debated those well enough.

For me, the OP question is really; 'what sort of tone do you want to the game; cinematic or realistic'. Or to reframe those in game theory terms 'gamist or simulationist'.

This is actually a design question i would expect FFG to have front and centre when writing these rules. So far i'm seeing an awful lot of cinematic/gamist elements to the beta, which leads to classifying NPCs as 'mooks' and 'bosses'.

Trouble is, that sort of approach for 40k then bumps up against the all-pervasive 'grimdark', that expects folks to be left a smoking tower fo bloody, dead, gore when taking a bolter shell to the face, or expects a sniper to pop his target with one shot.

Personally i favour one or the other and simply want FFG to make a decision as to what they're going for and see it through.

However, if i had to come down of the fence, for 40k i think i'd favour the cinematic approach. Assuming i got my way, the current system therefore needs to be overhauled so that:

The PC heroes (Han Solo) are hard to take down

The NPC 'bosses' (Darth Vader) are hard to take down

The NPC 'mooks' (Stormtroopers) die in droves to make the heroes look cool

Characteristics of a cenematic system i'd like to see:

Lots of gunfire, bullet storms everywhere, mooks dying by the bucketload, and heros/bosses 'narrowly escaping' the hail every time

PC/Boss wounds having 'cinematic effects' (light wounds, knock outs, knock downs / knocked off ledges, dive for covers, 'taste of blood' anger, etc.)

PC/Bosses only being taken down (not neccessarily killed) after being worn down, or by an epic action.

Currently DH2b is partly a cinematic system (bosses/mooks/wound effects requiring multiple hits), combined with a gritty realism system (hit locations, brutal wound effects, grinding detail and modifier stacking, etc.)

I'll be happy if and when FFG picks one and sticks to it.

I think its exactly there where oppiions differ.

I tend very much to the "grimdark" aspect, call it "realistic" if you may.

Of course, a PC should not die like a mook. But thats what Fate points and in general higher stats are for.

No additional artificial player protection ! Thats already enough.

If you are too careless, even this rotten down cultist, which got too close from behind should be able to slit your throat with his rusty knife, if he has a very good throw.

I want to get away from this "cool hero - flying bullets - perfect hairstyle" imagine. Thats not 40k

Read the novels, especially Dan Abnetts are very good to compare. Some of gaunts Ghosts main characters died very futile and in vain, not as heroes, no big last act, non-epic (just remember Corbec's Death...).

Thats 40k in my eyes, if you are not one of the Emperors Angels of Death.

If you want cineastic style - play Star Wars (that shall have no negative touch - indeed I also like Star Wars very much - but it is a whole other scenario and flair).

Han Solo may have been able to defeat Storm Troopers, but was never really hit by their lasers, as far as I remember the movies. He won due to superior skill and dodging, not because he was able to ignore being hit by a lethal weapon several times.

So frequently, this comes down to people assuming without any hesitation that a "hit" must inherently be a solid, centre-of-the-location impact. Every shot hitting the head location is right between the eyes, every hit to the body is right in centre mass, and so forth.

It's a perception that leaves no room for flesh wounds and near-misses and other occurences both logical and cinematic, and it's a perception that interferes with gameplay if the system does assume such things. If a Guardsman takes three "hits" to the head, those haven't bounced off the middle of his skull in an implausible manner... they've grazed the flesh, glanced across ears or cheeks, or left nasty-looking-but-superficial scalp wounds. A hit to the body doesn't mean it has to have punctured the heart, lungs or other major organs.

So often, it seems that some notions of a "realistically lethal" system are a rebellion against the idea of characters being implausibly tough that they go to the other extreme instead, where the human body consists of little more than a sack made of plasticine filled with blood kept under inexplicably high pressure.

The problem isn't that some hits are near-misses from time to time, but that the first three or four hits always are near-misses against elites and up.

And after the first couple of near-misses all hits are center-mass and severely wounding (if they do any damage at all). Near-misses are no longer possible. To me it seems boring, predictable and hard to believe when repeated in every combat.

The problem isn't that some hits are near-misses from time to time, but that the first three or four hits always are near-misses against elites and up.

After which point, you've worn out the target, burning through their stamina and their luck, making that telling blow more likely with every passing moment.

40k is a setting of lethality, yes... but it's also a setting of surviving against the odds, of a handful of protagonists battling against the encroaching darkness. Look at the wargame - for its entire history, there have been a few models in every force who can take far more punishment in game terms than they have any logical right to - that multi-wound captain who is physiologically no different to the rank-and-file around him.

Lasting injuries depict the consequences of violence. Lethality is dull, because lethality has only one long-term consequence - an end to that character's participation, and a new character in their place. Lingering wounds are much more interesting, and consequently more desirable.

And that captain still dies from a single hit from a powerfist or meltagun. The wounds as extra lifes model may be fine for a simple wargame, but for a much more complex and detailed RPG, such as Dark Heresy, it is not IMHO.

I like lingering wounds and other consequences for combat than merely death, but I do not like the version presented in Dark Heresy. It is way to predictable and combats are likely to play out in the same way regarding the effects of wounds every time. Near-miss, near-miss, near-miss, moderate wound, severe wound, death. Highly damaging weapons will remove the first one or two near-misses.

The chance of actually just passing out from ones wounds are not that high. Most of the time characters will first stop fighting when their skulls explode or something similar. Even getting your marrow heated to the point where our arm explodes like a grenade doesn't stop the character from fighting, making death a very likely consequence. If the designers wanted to make lingering wound and non-lethal consequences frequent, this i not the way to do it.

Actually, for some really weird reason, I keep forgetting about the new Rule that has NCPs instantly die upon receiving any sort of massive damage- and I am completely satisfied with that.

What I am not satisfied with is is the 1-10 on the players table, which do nothing but waste a round in combat.A hit that has no effect but to setup the next hit. Wooooo.... \

For PCs, I agree that long lasting effects are cooler than death: but keep in mind that most non-lasting effects from fights are actually non-lasting [blood loss, weakened, Stat Decay, for example.] and will fade away rather quickly after combat, leaving virtually no trace.

Permanent stat loss sucks, nobody likes it- and people would much rather die and remake a new character that have theirs whittle down to nothingness, I find. There's nothing more unpleasant that taking away a player's stats without giving him a way to get them back.

The small things are cool: losing fingers, deep scars, noses, eyes, ears.

Often a hit that would kill but doesn't because of fate points is going to cost the player a limb, or some other major effect.

The problem with this system is you skill the "cool losses", as the low damage stacks up at the "no effect, no effect, no effect" side and then BOOM! no character!

Its longer to achieve the same thing. In the previous system, sure rolling a 10 got you instantly killed perhaps- but rolling an 7-8-9 would cause you to lose fingers, rolling a 6-5-4 would cause you to be injured, bleeding, fatigued... etc etc.

Edit- Sorry, sorry: I know this Thread is about NPCs. I am Pro Instant death for NPCs because long lasting injuries are irrelevant to them in the long run. The faster the NPC dies, the faster I can move on with the plot. Masters can agonize as long as they want, they are likely to have fate points- and are very likely to get down to Critical damage because of that.

Just to make it clear:

I am not demanding that every hit is a deathly center strike --> this would also be unrealistic.

BUT: It has to be possible with an excellent hit, to center-strike a target and place a potentially lethal hit.

The classical example really is either the Boltgun to the face, or the snipers headshot.

It should not mean, that every Bolter-hit kills the target/PC.

But if someone hits very well (a lot of DoS) and rolls a very high damage also, should be able to kill an average target, that has not a very high Toughness, Armour and/or evade.

If the veteran Soldier in his Guard Flak and ToughBonus 7+ gets a hard hit, of course he should be able to survive it.

But if the ToughnessBonus 2, Armour 2 Adept gets the same hit, thats a "Hasta La Vista".

As I state din other threads, I would tie such "excellent hits" to the DoS though:

- auto: think about stacking the damage after defense for one single cumulative wound (but only 1 chance for RF)

- called shot (1 bullet): +1 damage per 2 DoS (per 1 DoS if accurate --> Sniper support)

And the regarding Han Solo / Star Wars Example: most Storm Troopers there seem to have a BS of around 20 - never try that with WH40k Storm Troopers.

Permanent stat loss sucks, nobody likes it- and people would much rather die and remake a new character that have theirs whittle down to nothingness, I find. There's nothing more unpleasant that taking away a player's stats without giving him a way to get them back.

And this is exactly why we now have far more characteristic advances. Yes, you will lose characteristics permenantly. You will buy them back up. Since the price of the advance scales with the bonus for the stat, its not that bad.

Its important to take this into account when people start theorycrafting this mythical 95 in a characteristic. Its just not going to happen. As a GM, I'll happily perform Called Shot actions targeting the arms of players with energy weapons. Boom - permenant Agility damage.

Kommissar is absolutely right.

This is the price for cheaper characteristics, which also can be bought more often.

The problem the way these characteristics purchases are setup, limited to rank advancement. Means a player might lose stats now, and not get them back for a loooong time- alternatively, a player might simply not lose stats and end up with a ridiculously huge buffer, as there's nothing keep you from purchasing all of these advances anyways.